| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do you think BC should make formal objection to the Eastway Legacy Planning Application? |
| YES, BC SHOULD MAKE OBJECTION KNOWN |
|
67% |
[ 46 ] |
| NO, BC SHOULD NOT MAKE OBJECTION KNOWN |
|
8% |
[ 6 ] |
| I WAS NOT A USER OF EASTWAY - DON'T HAVE A VIEW |
|
14% |
[ 10 ] |
| I WAS A USER OF EASTWAY - DON'T HAVE A VIEW |
|
8% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 68 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Brian Cookson
E, Silver
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 883
Location: Whalley, Lancashire
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Plurien wrote: |
| even when the NGB is sitting on its hands |
And this is the man who on another post says we should all stop arguing and work together!!!? This is doublespeak of which George Orwell would be proud!
Michael - this is a disgraceful statement and you know its not true. And you wonder why people don't want to work with you! Please stop your campaign of myths and misinformation about British Cycling.
For any veloriders readers who want to see BC's actual position on this matter, please see the latest statement on the BC website;
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BC/bcf/News2007/20070315_olympic_legacy_update.asp
Brian |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
KJ
T de F Winner
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 26400
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm just trying to understand what you hope to gain from continually posting the same information to the same group of people. Dare I say it . The majority of the active posters on here are track riders and sympathetic as we are there is a limit to what we can do.
I suspect that BC are doing all they actively can, but I cannot see why their every action needs to be reported to its membership. It would be impossible to run the governing body in this way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Billy Boy
T de F Winner
Joined: 11 Aug 2003
Posts: 30726
Location: Not Aylesbury
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KJ wrote: |
| I suspect that BC are doing all they actively can. |
That's the problem, not everyone has this view.
_________________
"Well done, you are 100% absolutely without a shadow of a doubt spot-bollock-on correct." - Tucker
"Eating is not for wimps" - coal miner
"most of us don't have your brilliance." - John McC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeco2
E, Gold
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 2190
Location: Prickwillow
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KJ wrote: |
I'm just trying to understand what you hope to gain from continually posting the same information to the same group of people. Dare I say it . The majority of the active posters on here are track riders and sympathetic as we are there is a limit to what we can do.
I suspect that BC are doing all they actively can, but I cannot see why their every action needs to be reported to its membership. It would be impossible to run the governing body in this way. |
Seig Heil! 
_________________
The British Monarchy = Institutionalised Privilage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ridley
E, Silver
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 1342
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| If Eastway has established the precedent that facilities can't be taken without replacement |
.. but it hasn't set any precedents?
Eastway
| Quote: |
| the country's ... most accessible closed road circuit |
... you really do live in cloud cuckoo land my friend... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeco2
E, Gold
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 2190
Location: Prickwillow
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KJ wrote: |
I'm just trying to understand what you hope to gain from continually posting the same information to the same group of people. Dare I say it . The majority of the active posters on here are track riders and sympathetic as we are there is a limit to what we can do.
I suspect that BC are doing all they actively can, but I cannot see why their every action needs to be reported to its membership. It would be impossible to run the governing body in this way. |
How do you arrive at that statement? 
_________________
The British Monarchy = Institutionalised Privilage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plurien
E, Silver
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1966
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Brian!
Always good to talk.
Sorry to say that 'NGB is sitting on its hands' was the only phrase I could come up with that didn't sound remotely critical. Here are some reasons for that impression;-
- Why did the need arise for the EUG to be formed when its founders were told by BC in late 2003 that it was dealing astisfactorily with the issue of plans which threatened Eastway?
- Why was the EUG told to 'get your hands of our velodrome' by an officer of BC?
- Why did BC put up a strategy document which allows for facilities in one place affected by one planning application to be bartered against others such as Crystal Palace, Hillingdon and goodness-knows-what for MTB since that didn't come into the document?
- Why did the EUG have to get Hog Hill in spite of BC's opposition to anything that wasn't Rammey Marsh?
- Why did even the LDA have to join in telling BC that funding for a relocation could be had outside the LVRPA?
- Why does BC find plans to be 'unacceptable' when it's the body which was put up as the 'representative' of cycling as the ODA drew up its masterplans in what is a plan-led process?
- Why is BC refusing to make planning objections known through the legitimate channels of the planning process - The only way in which a fair and open decision can be seen to be made, so which needs to be informed of all the issues which count in making assessment?
That'll do for now |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian Cookson
E, Silver
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 883
Location: Whalley, Lancashire
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh please!
Just read the statement Michael. And maybe if you stop slagging off BC at every possible opportunity, then it might help people to take seriously your wish to "work together".
Brian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnC
E, Bronze
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 480
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BC's response has majored on Michael being "insulting" to Peter King, British Cycling etc. That they rely on this shows the weakness of their position.
How can a new planning application that allots 1.3 hectare to the road circuit, never more than 40m from the urban 6 lane motorway and a space 200m x 25m for the off-road, replace the 24 hectare Eastway with its 7km of off road circuits?
How does this align with:
"the Authority shall have regard, in particular to the terms of any planning permission already granted in connection with preparation for the London Olympics"
This is glossed over in the BC statement that
"There is no merit in arguing that the conditions attached to the 2004 Planning Permission form some kind of binding obligation on any of the authorities involved because they don't; they are persuasive but no more."
Is that the beginning and end of the opinion that they have received from their lawyers?!
In order that the above clause and other legal opinion is used to achieve the best outcome for the cyclists, via the planning process, we are picking up the tab for the legal advice that BC refused to seek (after formal request by Eastway Users Group).
I don't know if we will have the Legacy Eastway Cycle Circuit as specified in the existing planning permission, but I do know that we have to get opinion on that. Unfortunately the money to pay for that advice is coming out of our sponsorship pool that would otherwise be used for bringing young people into cyclesport in East London. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KJ
T de F Winner
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 26400
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zeco2 wrote: |
| KJ wrote: |
I'm just trying to understand what you hope to gain from continually posting the same information to the same group of people. Dare I say it . The majority of the active posters on here are track riders and sympathetic as we are there is a limit to what we can do.
I suspect that BC are doing all they actively can, but I cannot see why their every action needs to be reported to its membership. It would be impossible to run the governing body in this way. |
How do you arrive at that statement? |
The second part or the first? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plurien
E, Silver
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1966
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have read the statement Brian.
Can you itemise any single positive thing that BC has contributed to the long-running tale of Eastway which was of its own making?
- This is again a genuine offer, Brian. I would like to hear good things about BC. I would like to know one thing for certain that has been done because I really can't think of one just now.
It won't be any of the following;-
- gaining recognition of the need for road and off-road to be replaced (EUG 2003 in meeting with London 2012 & EDAW)
- gaining recognition of need for road and off-road to be relocated for continuity (EUG 2004 in meetings with BC, Sport England, London 2012 and LVRPA)
- getting planning conditions on any loss of Eastway (EUG 2004)
- getting 'London Strategy thrown out as inappropriate (EUG 2004)
- getting Rammey Marsh thrown out as inappropriate (passim)
- getting Hog Hill (passim)
- getting 'interim' circuit in case Hog Hill didn't go live as planned (EUG May 2006)
- handing over viable series of events for 'interim' circuit to BC (EUG 2007)
- getting 'interim interim' provision when 'interim' hasn't gone live (EUG & others Mar 2007)
You know that this isn't me having a go at you. You know that you have cred for coming to see just what Rammey Marsh was compared to Hog Hill. I would really like to be pleasantly surprised by something achieved by BC out of this. In the meantime I've promoted lots of BC events and been to many many more, so it must be obvious that I really want the NGB to be up to standard when it comes to promoting the sport, getting more people into and making it as accessible as possible to all, maybe with a little slant towards youth riders (but that has good knock-on into many areas).
It's probably safe to say that users of Eastway could have done with more support through the period since 2003 and that they haven't had it. Tey have had open opposition from you though. They've always wanted that to be otherwise and have always sought to keep BC in touch, even on the many occasions when it simply did not want to listen. BC is sitting on its hands - if we're being polite.
If there are any changes to the 'game plan' which BC has adopted without consultation (again, show me the positives on the consultation and I'll be very happy about it ) it would probably be best to have a meeting to let us know and to hear what we think of your plan. Your London Alliance isn't anything that has been ratified by the obvious recourse of a meeting or any consultation, so it isn't a representative body - quite the opposite if some of its correspondence can be given any credence.
So come on Brian, please tell us some stuff that we can feel good about. Make sure it's relevant to our needs and that it reflects what those who've lost so much would like to see. Come and have a meeting. You're invited to bring anyone along who you want to support you and we can sort this issue out. You wouldn't be worried about a meeting if you've done lots in favour and we really want to hear what it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian Cookson
E, Silver
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 883
Location: Whalley, Lancashire
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JohnC wrote: |
| BC's response has majored on Michael being "insulting" to Peter King, British Cycling etc. That they rely on this shows the weakness of their position. |
No it hasn't and no it doesn't. And this is just more of the same. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it any truer.
The fact is that the approach adopted by Michael (and yourself) in respect of BC, i.e. that we don't know what we are talking about, have sold out to the suits, have done secret deals, etc, etc, is actually weakening the position of cycling and making all our jobs more difficult.
The statement is quite clear. You might disagree with it, you might wish to pursue a different approach yourself. That's fine. But please stop trying to discredit BC just because we don't see things the same way as you.
Brian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian Cookson
E, Silver
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 883
Location: Whalley, Lancashire
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plurien wrote: |
I have read the statement Brian.
Can you itemise any single positive thing that BC has contributed to the long-running tale of Eastway which was of its own making?
- This is again a genuine offer, Brian. I would like to hear good things about BC. I would like to know one thing for certain that has been done because I really can't think of one just now.
It won't be any of the following;-
- gaining recognition of the need for road and off-road to be replaced (EUG 2003 in meeting with London 2012 & EDAW)
- gaining recognition of need for road and off-road to be relocated for continuity (EUG 2004 in meetings with BC, Sport England, London 2012 and LVRPA)
- getting planning conditions on any loss of Eastway (EUG 2004)
- getting 'London Strategy thrown out as inappropriate (EUG 2004)
- getting Rammey Marsh thrown out as inappropriate (passim)
- getting Hog Hill (passim)
- getting 'interim' circuit in case Hog Hill didn't go live as planned (EUG May 2006)
- handing over viable series of events for 'interim' circuit to BC (EUG 2007)
- getting 'interim interim' provision when 'interim' hasn't gone live (EUG & others Mar 2007)
You know that this isn't me having a go at you. You know that you have cred for coming to see just what Rammey Marsh was compared to Hog Hill. I would really like to be pleasantly surprised by something achieved by BC out of this. In the meantime I've promoted lots of BC events and been to many many more, so it must be obvious that I really want the NGB to be up to standard when it comes to promoting the sport, getting more people into and making it as accessible as possible to all, maybe with a little slant towards youth riders (but that has good knock-on into many areas).
It's probably safe to say that users of Eastway could have done with more support through the period since 2003 and that they haven't had it. Tey have had open opposition from you though. They've always wanted that to be otherwise and have always sought to keep BC in touch, even on the many occasions when it simply did not want to listen. BC is sitting on its hands - if we're being polite.
If there are any changes to the 'game plan' which BC has adopted without consultation (again, show me the positives on the consultation and I'll be very happy about it ) it would probably be best to have a meeting to let us know and to hear what we think of your plan. Your London Alliance isn't anything that has been ratified by the obvious recourse of a meeting or any consultation, so it isn't a representative body - quite the opposite if some of its correspondence can be given any credence.
So come on Brian, please tell us some stuff that we can feel good about. Make sure it's relevant to our needs and that it reflects what those who've lost so much would like to see. Come and have a meeting. You're invited to bring anyone along who you want to support you and we can sort this issue out. You wouldn't be worried about a meeting if you've done lots in favour and we really want to hear what it is. |
You're right Michael. You are the hero of the hour. Everything BC has done is rubbish and everything you have done has been fantastic. I can add no more to this debate.
Brian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnC
E, Bronze
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 480
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Brian Cookson wrote: |
| JohnC wrote: |
| BC's response has majored on Michael being "insulting" to Peter King, British Cycling etc. That they rely on this shows the weakness of their position. |
No it hasn't and no it doesn't. And this is just more of the same. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it any truer.
The fact is that the approach adopted by Michael (and yourself) in respect of BC, i.e. that we don't know what we are talking about, have sold out to the suits, have done secret deals, etc, etc, is actually weakening the position of cycling and making all our jobs more difficult.
The statement is quite clear. You might disagree with it, you might wish to pursue a different approach yourself. That's fine. But please stop trying to discredit BC just because we don't see things the same way as you.
Brian. |
You've discredited yourselves. Always avoiding the issue and sending up a smokescreen.
As I asked before, in what way does the 1.5 hectare road and off road next to the motorway "have regard to" the Eastway Legacy Cycle Circuit, as specified in planning permission?
The lack of credible opinion on this is the reason I am diverting funding from directly supporting young people to the slightly longer term issue of legacy.
Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KJ
T de F Winner
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 26400
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll ask again.
Why do you persist in berating people on a public forum when all it does is diminish your credibility.
Slanging matches however well constructed achieve nothing. Work with rather than against BC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian Cookson
E, Silver
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 883
Location: Whalley, Lancashire
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am sorry but I see no point in continuing the debate. If you don't want to accept BC's position then that's fine. You carry on doing what you are doing and BC will continue with the strategy outlined in our statement.
All I ask is that you try and pursue your methods without the sideswipes at BC. It's not necessary, it doesn't do anybody any good, and it won't make a good outcome any more achievable.
Best regards
Brian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr Switcher
E, Silver
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Posts: 818
Location: the gutter
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KJ wrote: |
I'll ask again.
Why do you persist in berating people on a public forum when all it does is diminish your credibility.
Slanging matches however well constructed achieve nothing. Work with rather than against BC. |
I have found these recent debates extremely educational and interesting and am now better equipped to make a more informed decision either way. That's why we fight so hard for freedom of speech in this country. I don't see anyone's credibility being diminished or anyone being berated or slagged off. Just what used to be called criticism. It's all been very positive imho. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ldncycle
Elite Poster
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 229
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="KJ"]I'll ask again.
Why do you persist in berating people on a public forum when all it does is diminish your credibility.
Slanging matches however well constructed achieve nothing. Work with rather than against BC.[/quote]
Who are you talking to? Brian or Plurien? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KJ
T de F Winner
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 26400
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ldncycle wrote: |
| KJ wrote: |
I'll ask again.
Why do you persist in berating people on a public forum when all it does is diminish your credibility.
Slanging matches however well constructed achieve nothing. Work with rather than against BC. |
Who are you talking to? Brian or Plurien? |
Does this suggest I'm talking to Brian? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KJ
T de F Winner
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 26400
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr Switcher wrote: |
| KJ wrote: |
I'll ask again.
Why do you persist in berating people on a public forum when all it does is diminish your credibility.
Slanging matches however well constructed achieve nothing. Work with rather than against BC. |
I have found these recent debates extremely educational and interesting and am now better equipped to make a more informed decision either way. That's why we fight so hard for freedom of speech in this country. I don't see anyone's credibility being diminished or anyone being berated or slagged off. Just what used to be called criticism. It's all been very positive imho. |
Well I hope you use your informed decision wisely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
